The new “10 year plan” for global change

This is reminiscent of communist Russia with their disastrous five year plan, which while the plan encouraged industrialization, damaged Soviet agriculture to such an extent that it didn’t recover until after the Second World War. The plan was considered by the Soviet leadership so successful in this sense that the second Five-Year Plan was declared in 1932, lasting until 1937. (source: Wikipedia)

In the same vein, the US opens a new line of attack in the AGW battle, which I expect to damage both industry and agriculture:

Administration Releases 10-Year Global Change Strategic Plan

The Obama Administration today released a 10-year strategic plan for research related to global change, identifying priorities that will help state and local governments, businesses, and communities prepare for anticipated changes in the global environment, including climate change, in the decades ahead.

The Plan—released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which for more than 20 years has coordinated Federal global change research— was developed collaboratively by more than 100 Federal scientists. It reflects extensive inputs from stakeholders and the general public, as well as a detailed review by the National Research Council, chartered by Congress to provide independent expert advice to the Nation. The Plan will be implemented through the USGCRP and the 13 Federal departments and agencies it represents.

“Human actions are altering the atmosphere, the land, and our oceans, placing new pressures on the Earth’s ecosystems and threatening the health and economic welfare of our Nation and the world,” said Tom Armstrong, Executive Director of the USGCRP. “High-quality and well-coordinated research is essential if we are to better understand and predict future changes, develop strategies to minimize our vulnerabilities, and adapt to changes that can’t be avoided.”

Federal research under the USGCRP has for two decades focused largely on detailed documentation of specific environmental changes by satellite and other Earth-observing technologies and the development of sophisticated computer models of the Earth’s climate system to predict how such changes will manifest in the near-term. In the ten years going forward that emphasis will expand to incorporate the complex dynamics of ecosystems and human social-economic activities and how those factors influence global change. By including these added dimensions, USGCRP-sponsored research will generate information of unprecedented practical use to decision-makers in a wide range of sectors including agriculture, municipal planning, and public works.

“It is no longer enough to study the isolated physical, chemical, and biological factors affecting global change,” Armstrong said. “Advanced computing technologies and methods now allow us to integrate insights from those disciplines and add important information from the ecological, social, and economic sciences. This new capacity will deepen our understanding of global change processes and help planners in realms as diverse as storm water management, agriculture, and natural resources management.”

The Strategic Plan describes four key goals for the USGCRP during 2012 – 2021:

Communicate and Educate: Broaden public understanding of global change and support the development of a scientific workforce skilled in Earth-system sciences.

Work towards these goals will help the USGCRP fulfill its Congressional mandate to “assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change,” as called for in the Global Change Research Act of 1990. To achieve these goals, USGCRP is developing an implementation strategy that will draw in part upon its expertise in conducting National Climate Assessments—broad assessments of global change impacts across U.S. economic sectors, the latest of which is currently under development.

In combination with USGCRP’s expanding communication and education activities, the new scientific findings and decision-support tools expected to emerge from the Strategic Plan will empower a broad range of stakeholders to make more informed and effective decisions as they prepare for and respond to the many dimensions of global change.

How is it that humans are considered the enemy? What do they want,
an empty planet? Time to start moving forward and develop the
resources we have, to support (and indeed, rebuild) the country,
the infrastructure, and the society in general. Would that those
billions went to something useful.

Seems like they’ve already decided that global change is happening from humans…I like the focus on scientifc knowledge, but they’re starting out biased. To me this says that we will have to adapt, we just want the science to tell you how to adapt immediatly when necessary. I wonder what will happen as the Earth cool’s if they will try to mitigate that

They want to dominate the rest of academia as thoroughly with their taxpayer funded green-money as they dominate climate science, and academia, already hiking up its short skirt, is more than eager to be bought.

I can see the Soviet Union from the 21st century. Well, maybe its earlier, more despotic variant. It appears these fanatics are committed to consolidating wealth and power under their control. Science will simply be another victim to exploit as their selfish interests take precedence.

Anyway, it’s telling that they have not actually pursued any mitigating actions to secure America’s future. In fact, quite the contrary, their policies have advanced progressive corruption of individuals and society, denigrated individual dignity and devalued human life, and left our nation more vulnerable to collapse. Still, the rhetoric is emotionally appealing.

As for the “advanced computing technologies and methods”, they are increasing precision without increasing accuracy. Their models integrate an incomplete and, apparently, insufficient characterization of the system, both natural and human. They assume statistical models where they are only capable of describing limiting behaviors. They lack the skill now, and for the foreseeable future, to make their predictions.

“High-quality and well-coordinated research is essential if we are to better understand and predict future changes, develop strategies to minimize our vulnerabilities, and adapt to changes that can’t be avoided.”

Sounds like Obie is trying to use the DOT (Department of Transportation) method of planning for his climate change great expenditure long range plan.DOT plans things far into the future and tries to lock into the plan all possible options. While it is difficult to stop DOT’s plans from coming into fruition, it is even harder to remove options out of their plan permanently.

Like congress’s frustration with EPA, actually passing an end of existance law is harder than starting the dang department. Once there is a plan, bureaucracy will come into existance as people are placed to track adherence to the plan and then others will be hired to manage it.

May Congress recognize it for the “tomato that ate Chicago” this plan is and defund it forever. (along with all of those CAGW alarmist sponges).

152 pages, 32 MB of BS. Lot’s of pretty pictures. Lot’s of “Goals and Objectives”. One pie chart about how they are going to divvy up $2.18billion. Nothing that anyone with a clue about Strategic Planning would recognize. Note even a lousy Milestone chart. Basically a wish list and job security. Improve this, assess that, communicate the other thing. This will sit on a shelf and collect $2.18 billion dollars of dust. Paid for by US Taxpayers. Gee, thanks y’all.

Ontario only has four year plans, 2011 – 2014, is our current window. I guess that our Premier thinks he can do as much damage in four years as Obama can do in ten — and most here would judge that assessment to be correct.

People BS regularly to gain advantage. Politicians and scientists are no different.

If you want to know the truth about anything, don’t listen to what is being said. Instead look to see where the rich and powerful place their money.

If someone comes on the news and tells you the dollar is going to go up, you can be pretty sure the opposite is going to happen. Someone with $$ has almost certainly planted the story so they can unload them on the gullible and unwary.

Don’t believe me? Watch for stories on currency fluctuations, and record the number of times they move opposite to the story. Calculate the odds this is simply chance.

You want to know the truth, look at the number of climate scientists that have bought waterfront, after driving the price down through climate scares.

You want to know the truth, look at the number of climate scientists that have gotten rich through promoting doom and gloom as a means of generating publicity.

Everyone sees what is going on, and plenty jumped on the bandwagon to make $$. Truth went out the window long ago.

“Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”
Benjamin Franklin

Since it is obvious to all but the select few that we as a country cannot afford the government that we have, we need to start trimming it back a little. Here is a great place to start. $2 bills can be cut going forward by throwing the CRP out of their cushy nice paid jobs, and nobody will miss these leeches in the slightest.

“The Plan—released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which for more than 20 years has coordinated Federal global change research— was developed collaboratively by more than 100 Federal scientists. It reflects extensive inputs from stakeholders and the general public, as well as a detailed review by the National Research Council, chartered by Congress to provide independent expert advice to the Nation. The Plan will be implemented through the USGCRP and the 13 Federal departments and agencies it represents.”

OK. November is approaching rapidly. We must spend the months between in re-doubled efforts to defeat Obama and his socialist cadres in the coming election. If we can achieve that, the USGCRP, the National Research Council and the 100 ‘federal scientists’ that contributed to this obcenity become targets for immediate retirement in Jan 2013. I’d love to see the look on their faces!

That would be a small but significant start to recovering our country, through limited government, fiscal discipline, and capitalist based free market principles.

I’m surprised they haven’t named it the “Great Climate Leap Forward”, after the “Great Leap Forward” Mao imposed on his nation to the tune of 40-45 million deaths. That set China back a decade or two since most of the people they eliminated were more intellectually inclined–scientists, engineers, professors, busienssmen.

We’re seeing essentially the same impact here in the US, with the dumbing-down of our schools, appalling levels of intolerance at the university level, and criminal behavior of post-graduates actively advocating and promoting the CAGW scam.

Note: Marxists have a history of using the term “Forward” over the past 100 years in the titles of their publications and elsewhere. In the US we’re now subjected to programs such as “Leaning Forward” and with Obama’s very own use of the term “Forward” as his new election slogan. I’m sure that’s more than just a coincidence–Hope and Change has transformed into a Marxist slogan recognized worldwide.

Every idea that comes out of this administration is double wrapped in some “newspeak” title. From AGW to employment to middle east policy, everything is some Orwellian creation. I don’t know about you guys but it scares the living crap out of me. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t win in November, the lackeys will survive for a long time in the EPA, DOE, DOI, etc. There is a ton of momentum on their side, I just don’t know how you stem the tide.

It would be foolish not to plan for the possibility that the National Academies of Science of every major country are correct and the bloggers and talk show hosts are not.
___________________________
The PLAN is the destruction of the middle class.

”…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” ~ Maurice Strong, the Canadian oil billionaire who was the Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, where the UN Agenda 21 was first showcased.

The old company towns set up by the robber barons where workers were worse off than slaves. It is probably no coincidence that Maurice Strong has been linked to the old robber barron family, the Rockefellers, most of his life.

What you are happily embracing as “Saving Mother Earth” is really a thin disguise for a return to worldwide feudalism with most of us as landless serfs trapped in company towns (aka Smart Growth Planned Communities) with no transportation and no way out.

The audacity of the plan is incredible and worse they have almost succeeded in implementing it.

…..I don’t know about you guys but it scares the living crap out of me. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t win in November, the lackeys will survive for a long time in the EPA, DOE, DOI, etc. There is a ton of momentum on their side, I just don’t know how you stem the tide.
_______________________________
Neutron bomb?

Sometimes I think that is the only thing that will stop the lemmings on their rush over the cliff dragging the rest of us with them. Link

Steve F says:
May 1, 2012 at 7:57 pm
It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t win in November, the lackeys will survive for a long time in the EPA, DOE, DOI, etc.

Political appointees hang around forever. The one advantage to the Jacksonian Spoils System was the wholesale replacement of the old crooks with new ones, and it took the new ones a while to learn the ropes, so they didn’t do as much damage — for a while, anyway…

I’ve known all along the warmers and socialist wouldn’t go down easy, this declaration is further proof. This is war and they are getting desperate, total victory is their only goal, no matter the cost or in spite of the proof, evidence be dammed, they see only what is predetermined!
These are dangerous times for we skeptics and morals!

Gail has quite a point here, I have myself made references to how subsidies funneled to those connected to the politicians reminded me of the robber baron era in that it was an era when corruption ran rampant with politicians giving the “inside scoop” to their favorite rich buddies who would turn around and help them get elected. No different then today really with either political party really.

One of the largest things about the robber barrons was land and the railroads (the rich or well connected would get “inside information” on where the railroad was going to be laid and would buy up that land and jack up the price for the Government..) and this was all part of the process of the cronyism of that era. Politicians and the super rich were as thick as thieves with millions being made in the process and politicians getting graft on the side as well.

And fast forward to today where this same process is working with wind turbines and solar panels…..is it any coincidence that large donors to Obama’s campaign got large chunks of thank you money from the stimulus package?

Or that Obama is getting record donations this time around as well? The history and facts alone speak volumes here.

Don’t think for a second that there is going to be a clean election with so much money at stake. The people who finance Obama fully expect to get money back from their investment. He has changed politics indeed, from a system where the rich donate to get favors like in the past (and generally donated to both sides ) to the current system he has started for himself where the rich donate to get free money from every other taxpayer who did not support the winner.

Better get on the band-wagon or you lose your own money (taxes) which goes to the other guy. Remember, its the era of the robber baron all over again. Roll on over to Obama’s site and donate now so that Obama can give away other people’s money to you!

Mods, a little leeway for just this one post as a rebuttal if you will permit. TIA _Jim

Gail Combs says on May 1, 2012 at 7:58 pm:
…
The old company towns set up by the robber barons where workers were worse off than slaves. It is probably no coincidence that Maurice Strong has been linked to the old robber barron family, the Rockefellers, most of his life.

You know, I wish you would get educated (outside the ‘loop’ you currently find yourself frequenting) read some actual history on the real origins and life/lives of “The Rockefellers”.

Please, I implore you, before total onset of dementia. (Verily you have a modern-day Rockefeller in the form of Bill Gates whose product you are no doubt using to read this, but I digress.)

Meanwhile, If the Rockfellers, were such robber-barons the ‘press’ of the day made them out to be (THIS should be your FIRST sign that all this nutty stuff was just the published ‘muck’ of the day and time, like Ida Tarbell’s articles in McClure’s), why did they engage in so much philanthropy over the years? A few major Rockefeller charitable ventures include:
1. Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, 1901 (later became Rockefeller University)
2. General Education Board, 1902. Phased out in 1965.
3. Rockefeller Sanitary Commission, 1909 to 1915.
4. The Rockefeller Foundation, 1913, remains one of the world’s leading philanthropic forces today.
5. University of Chicago. Rockefeller was also a generous benefactor of Columbia, Harvard, Spelman, Bryn Mawr and Yale.

In 1855, Rockefeller found his first job, working as an assistant bookkeeper for less than four dollars a week. He showed a talent for detail and a strong work ethic from the beginning. In 1859, Rockefeller’s diligence was rewarded by being made a partner.

In that same year, oil was discovered in not-too-distant Titusville, Pennsylvania, touching off the growth of a new industry driven largely by the demand for kerosene for lighting. Rockefeller was immediately attracted to the oil business, but was repelled by the disorder of the wildcatters.

The climate models have no clothes. They have no predictive ability. The proof that they don’t is in the observations of what has happened compared to model predictions. Warming is at a standstill. So is sea level rise. Glaciers in Glacier Bay retreated ten times more from 1780 to 1912 as 1912 to present. Warming still precedes CO2 increases. The “hot spot” ain’t there. Severe weather is not as severe as it used to be. A review of cycles of glaciation and warming during the past 500,000 years show Earth is now in what is established as long periods of glaciation and short inter-glacials.

Ocean pH was 0.8 units lower and atmospheric CO2 was five times higher one hundred million years ago (when marine invertebrates had already been established and successful for over four hundred million years). Recent studies show that some marine invertebrates do better in higher acidity, and that models using strong acids have led to incorrect conclusions about increased ocean acidity. Since very little CO2 absorbed in water becomes carbonic acid, it has very little effect on pH anyway Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 – since we have many studies that show the warming ending the Little Ice Age began about three hundred years ago, the relationship between current warming, CO2, and ocean acidification seems specious. Since CO2 is released to the atmosphere as oceans warm, there is a missing disconnect between oceans warming and atmospheric CO2 being absorbed by the oceans. It would appear more likely that oceans would have absorbed CO2 and created more carbonic acid during the Little Ice Age than during the warming that followed. Since atmospheric warming following the Little Ice Age would have preceded ocean warming, a timeline of decreasing pH over three hundred years ago makes more sense.

But back to models. If the models were right, US temperature would have increased at least three times the 1 degree F since 1900 (with most of the increase in the 1930’s). Sea levels would be up more than 6 inches since 1999, instead of less than one inch. Major hurricanes would be hitting the US annually, instead of none in over 3 years. Texas temperatures would be up more than the observed 0.04 degree F since 1884. Or to put it simply, the models would not be so crappy at predicting the future, or in explaining the past.

Correction (remove “missing” before “disconnect”): Since CO2 is released to the atmosphere as oceans warm, there is a disconnect between oceans warming and atmospheric CO2 being absorbed by the oceans.

(I believe) They plan to steal the election if they have to…. in order to continue implementation. If every election can be stolen, any wacko plan can be implemented. When elections cannot be used to exert the will of the people, taking the country back by force becomes their only path to restoration.

Sinister is it not? And another example of the mask being allowed to slip a little further…
Q. Bolshevism or Nazism? Because Reading through the four dot-points I was expecting a fifth containing concepts with the sub-text of ‘Untermenschen’ and ‘Lebensraume’ … perhaps that’s for an update at the five year mark…?

The term robber barons refers to a time in American history where political graft coincided with “robber barons” who would set up town and/or rob people blindly for pure profit. This was an era of no regulation. This era was most notably from 1866-1900 roughly. (US)

The account you give of the Rockefeller’s is for two reasons off-topic to that.

1) this happened after this gilded era.
2) This is one particular family/man.

But besides those facts, your so-called rebuttal has logical fallacies in it. The reasons above are enough to throw it aside because yes, they are logically unsound as an argument.

First, your straw man. Just because Rockefeller did good things does not mean he was not quote “a robber baron” as well. A man can later in life atone or perhaps feel bad about all the bad he did in life and do some good as well. You are misrepresenting the position of Gail here which is a logical fallacy known as a strawman. Those things you list that the Rockefellers did were all good, but nowhere did anyone say they were bad or that robber baron’s also did not do philanthropy….

There are also about 2-3 different logical fallacies which I could explain with your logic there, but there are much lower hanging fruit.

Temporal fallacy:

You confused time-lines like I said.

Rockefeller was perhaps a robber baron earlier in life during the time we were talking about, but later in life he atoned or attempted to by over-compensating and founding a bunch of charities.

Then there is the obvious fallacy from above just repeated to make it simpler to understand.

Robber barons are bad people, but Rockefeller did a bunch of good stuff, so therefore he is not a robber baron.

And I will repeat what you said earlier (the nasty parts)

_Jim says:
May 1, 2012 at 8:57 pm
You know, I wish you would get educated (outside the ‘loop’ you currently find yourself frequenting) read some actual history on the real origins and life/lives of “The Rockefellers”.

Please, I implore you, before total onset of dementia. (Verily you have a modern-day Rockefeller in the form of Bill Gates whose product you are no doubt using to read this, but I digress.)

I see a few ad-homs and a couple other red herrings thrown in there for good measure.

Nice attempt at rebuttal, but you failed. I think we would love to hear a real rebuttal on why Rockefeller or perhaps other robber barons are not really robber barons, but you did not provide a solid argument here at all. In fact, your argument is so weak I wonder why you bothered?

In debate, if you want to prove someone wrong, you often first prove that their original premise is wrong, like prove that he was not a robber baron as in during the time of robber barons circa 1865-1900.

That is where you should focus on. After reading a book on the copper wars up in Montana and the end of this era, I was rather surprised at what a lack of regulation could do for a small town as far as deaths from a smelter……and you might learn something just looking this up. Rockefeller himself was involved in this and was not really clean himself in this episode but neither was anyone else, so go figure.

To put it into perspective, more people died everyday in Butte then died in New York City during this time because no regulation on emissions and an uncaring management from Rockefeller on down did not care about the workers one bit. They just carted more in as they died.

benfrommo says: May 1, 2012 at 11:04 pm “more people died everyday in Butte”
I lived for a year less than a Km from a quite large Cu smelter that had no capture of SO2 emissions. I did not die, nor did my children of 2 and 8 years ages. Pray tell, just what emissions from a copper mine or smelter have been implicated in death rates of any severity? What is/was the causative agent? If there was such a causative agent, was it remediated? If so, was it by the producer or by a regulatory government? It’s a bit rich to think that companies purposefully go about killing people. It just does not happen that way. There’s always a road out of town.

I have a bit of difficulty with your reasoning for high rates of wroker injury and death regarding your statement:

“…This was an era of no regulation….”

I imagine that most people would agree with this and maybe I do to – but first I need to understand what you mean by “regulation”. Most people mean this to be workplace safety rules: imposed and policed by governments. If that is your meaning, then I disagree with you.

But what if many of the high rates of injury and death at that time were part and parcel of the dangerous nature of the work being conducted and that these risks were fully understood and accepted as the risks faced in conducting their work?

And what if many/ most of those injuries and deaths occurred due to the rudimentary nature of the technology, equipment, materials, techniques employed at that time (eg. wooden pulleys and shackles; natural fibre rope etc.).

Sure, with time technology, materials, terchniques improve with time and with them – so does worker safety.

Do we need to invoke “regulation” as being responsible for these improvements? I don’t think so. If we do then you are arguing that regulation is responsible for the technological improvements, is the driving force for invention of new materials etc.

See, thepropblerm with the “lack fo regulation” argument is that this assumes the employers are content to lose their workers. But this has only costs (not just financial) for employers who have to replace and train new staff and surely lose goodwill form surviving employees if they were really as cavalier as you imply. These things have high costs for employers and businesses.

Vitally important to keep in mind that technologies and techniques improve through time without having anything to do with governments or bureaucrats. But it does take time. Yet governments and bureacrats would certainly like us all to think that it is they who have improved our work safety and lives in every respect and therefore we need more government!

And if your argument is that it takes a regulatory stick to compel employers to look after their workers properly then perahps the real problem was then (and still is) due to the lack of legal protection for individual property rights? The reason I bring this up is that your comment about “lack of regulation” suits our governments very well to justify ever more government.

The same argument essentially is used by the supporters of big govt and eg., the EPA, to justify their diktats on pollution. It is essentially about control and socialism.

But free market capitalism holds private property rights as its central tenet. If these rights were properly protected and upheld then there would be no need for an EPA or workplace safety regulation. Pollution (I mean real pollution not the arbitrary Govt kind) is an affront to individual proprty rights. Real protections would be a sufficient stick to incentivise businesses to pursue a no pollution strategy.

These things should be the concern of a free society in a free market capitalist system without the interference of goverment planners and regulators. This is why we are finding our freedoms disappearing before our eyes… road to hell paved with good intentions and all that…

Gee… A Central Planning Document produced by a Government Central Planning Committee with a 10 year plan… Now what does that remind me off… Oh, right Socialism Central Planning…

We don’t need a hundred exorbitantly paid folks gazing at their navels to give us pronouncements from on high about what to do. Just give us the Emergent Behaviour of open free and fair markets and we’ll take care of it all ourselves.

At least your lot avoided using five years as the unit of choice. Here in the UK we have our five year plans and go far beyond the USSR of proclaiming a second five year plan. We’ve got ‘em from 2010 to 2050.

I would be grateful if somebody were to explain what is being altered by this new “Strategic Plan” other than its having dropped the words “climate” and “warming” from US policy on the ‘global environment’.

For decades the US government has been spending over $2.5 billion p.a. on ‘global warming’ activities. The “Plan” indicates no change is intended to this rate of expenditure.

The “Plan” outlines the intended distribution of the expenditure over the period 2012-2021. But I fail to see any significant alteration of the distribution from what it was in 2011.

And a government can alter any government “Plan” at any time. This “Plan” is for a period that includes at least two elections. A “Plan” adopted now cannot fix what a future government chooses to do.

However, publication of such a “Plan” in the months prior to an election can be considered to be a policy statement for use in that election. The dropping of the words “climate” and “warming” in this “Plan” implies that publication of this “Plan” is merely a tactical adjustment of the wording of the existing policy prior to the forthcoming election.

Gail Combs says on May 1, 2012 at 7:58 pm:
…
“The old company towns set up by the robber barons where workers were worse off than slaves. It is probably no coincidence that Maurice Strong has been linked to the old robber barron family, the Rockefellers, most of his life.”

You know, I wish you would get educated (outside the ‘loop’ you currently find yourself frequenting) read some actual history on the real origins and life/lives of “The Rockefellers”.

Please, I implore you, before total onset of dementia. (Verily you have a modern-day Rockefeller in the form of Bill Gates whose product you are no doubt using to read this, but I digress.)

Meanwhile, If the Rockfellers, were such robber-barons the ‘press’ of the day made them out to be (THIS should be your FIRST sign that all this nutty stuff was just the published ‘muck’ of the day and time, like Ida Tarbell’s articles in McClure’s), why did they engage in so much philanthropy over the years? A few major Rockefeller charitable ventures include:
1. Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, 1901 (later became Rockefeller University)
2. General Education Board, 1902. Phased out in 1965.
3. Rockefeller Sanitary Commission, 1909 to 1915.
4. The Rockefeller Foundation, 1913, remains one of the world’s leading philanthropic forces today.
5. University of Chicago. Rockefeller was also a generous benefactor of Columbia, Harvard, Spelman, Bryn Mawr and Yale.

A few places to start on an ‘education’ on the Rockefellers:

THE ROCKEFELLERS: How A Few Poor Germans Became An Immortal American Dynasty

The Rockefellers most likely immigrated from Germany to the U.S. in the 1720s. …. by no means did JD [Rockefeller] come from wealth.

John D. Rockefeller: The Ultimate Oil Man

Excerpt:

In 1855, Rockefeller found his first job, working as an assistant bookkeeper for less than four dollars a week. He showed a talent for detail and a strong work ethic from the beginning. In 1859, Rockefeller’s diligence was rewarded by being made a partner.

In that same year, oil was discovered in not-too-distant Titusville, Pennsylvania, touching off the growth of a new industry driven largely by the demand for kerosene for lighting. Rockefeller was immediately attracted to the oil business, but was repelled by the disorder of the wildcatters.

Papers of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.

=======

Ah, to have such a high regard for a man who thought competition is a sin, you’ve obviously been well educated…

“The super-rich hide their profits and ownership of mega corporations in “tax-free piggybank” foundations where they can buy, sell, hold real estate and securities. They pay no capital gains tax, no income tax and the funds just multiply. In addition, foundations finance like-minded non government organizations (NGOs). Foundation money established the National Education Association (NEA), a licentious lobby. The Rockefeller Foundation backed the Marxist educator, John Dewey. It gave substantial funding to institutes of higher learning, especially schools of education, buying and promoting a Socialist-Fascist mentality. Progressive, non-traditional education and permissiveness, with substantiating textbooks, was enthusiastically advanced with hundreds of millions of dollars from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, a mere tentacle of the monstrous Rockefeller enforcement mob. “Those who control education will over a period of several generations control a nation.”[10]”

Foundations – moving money from one pocket to the other. If you’re not suffering from dementia and would benefit from de-programming, please do read at least this article, maybe you’ll see the disjunct, maybe not.

“The original Ruthless Rockefeller – John D. managed, by bribery, coercion, violence, dynamite explosions and sabotage to crush or control any and all local oil refining competitors within a year. Imagine, people using life-endangering explosives to further their own agenda! What a concept! The ultimate and most effective way to destroy competition is to use politics, the biggest of all businesses.”

“John D. Rockefeller, a Machiavellian monopoly capitalist, used the government to promote his interests and callously suppress or totally exclude healthy competition. The true role of a legitimate government is to protect the rights and property of all citizens. However, socialist-fascist public servants, complicit with big business for their own financial advancement, care little about their oaths to the Constitution or the citizens. “To control commerce, banking, transportation and natural resources on a national level, you must control the federal government.”[11] ”

“Rockefeller’s industrial espionage system was by far the most elaborate, most sophisticated and most successful that had ever been established.” … “For a long time the public didn’t realize how powerful he was because he kept insisting he was battling firms that he secretly owned outright.”

Not at all shy of telling us what they’re aiming for, David Rockefeller:

“We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nation will accept the New World Order”

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it” -Memoirs, p.405

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” -Bilderberg Meeting, 1991″

These are the people creating the 10 year plan. Note how its phrased, an intellectual elite and world bankers, not the world bankers claiming to be the intellectual elite, but those who they support will certainly think themselves that..

There’s a very funny video of Gordon Brown in glazed eye mode spouting new world order memes one after the other not long after getting to be prime minister – not a mention in Hansard that he held any such ideas previously.

This confirms my opinion, often stated here, that we have no chance whatsoever of winning this battle let alone the war against junk climate science. Anyone who has the slightest optimism that the CAGW alarmist argument is being defeated (and that’s most here) is simply delusional. The Watermelons, Greens, The Team et al won the war long ago to the extent that anthropogenic global weirding, or whatever it’s called today, is the wholly accepted norm by virtually all governments on the planet (especially if left of centre redistributionists).

We need a new paradigm, one that reaches the citizenry and their representatives but is simple to assimilate. The empirical data v. computer models argument cannot work – we’re dealing with religion here so perhaps we need to look at e.g. how cult followers are rescued from their misplaced faith.

Until we find that (probably non technical) answer the alarmists will continue on their winning march to enslave us all – and the game will remain over.

_Jim says:
May 1, 2012 at 8:57 pm
“You know, I wish you would get educated (outside the ‘loop’ you currently find yourself frequenting) read some actual history on the real origins and life/lives of “The Rockefellers”.”

_Jim, you forgot to mention that David Rockefeller together with Zbigniew Brzezinski founded The Trilateral Commission, the original globalists.

Even the extreme left is not entirely happy with that:
” On the left, linguist Noam Chomsky argues that a report issued by the Commission called The Crisis of Democracy which proposes solutions for the “excess of democracy” in the 1960s, embodies “the ideology of the liberal wing of the state capitalist ruling elite”.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_commission

“It is no longer enough to study the isolated physical, chemical, and biological factors affecting global change,” Armstrong said. “Advanced computing technologies and methods now allow us to integrate insights from those disciplines and add important information from the ecological, social, and economic sciences. This new capacity will deepen our understanding of global change processes and help planners in realms as diverse as storm water management, agriculture, and natural resources management.”

Somebody has called Bush The Elder a puppet of the Soviets above. This is kinda the wrong way around…

The first 5 year plan of the Soviets was created by Americans, especially the architect Albert Kahn (born in Germany), supported by Henry Ford. And much of it was also executed by American firms, as the bolsheviks didn’t have the necessary skills; having executed the skillful before.
“Between 1929 and 1932 he also directed the construction of 521 factories and the training of more than four thousand engineers in the Soviet Union as part of the Soviets’ First Five-Year Plan of industrialization. ”http://www.answers.com/topic/albert-kahn

richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:14 am
“So, can anybody tell me what is being altered by this “Plan”, please?”
_______
“In the ten years going forward that emphasis will expand to incorporate the complex dynamics of ecosystems and human social-economic activities and how those factors influence global change. ”

Not sure if that answers your question but what concerns me is: 1) the sheer breadth of that statement – what does it not encompass? 2) how the information (whatever it is) might be used in the future 3) that the US Govt believes it appropriate to spend vast sums of other people’s money on whatever it is this plan entails, and 4) that it reads like a piece of historical authoritarianism and what’s more, that seems to be the clear intention. So what’s the agenda?

“Climate policies that hinder or slow down economic development or increase the price of energy and food threaten to augment poverty and, as a result, increase net death and disease,” Dr Goklany said.
The increase in biofuel production between 2004 and 2010, for example, is estimated to have increased the population in absolute poverty in the developing world by over 35 million, leading to about 200,000 additional deaths in 2010 alone.

But if we [the skeptics] fail, then the whole world…, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Our computer models stink so lets make bigger computer models including things we understand even less like ecology. Idiots. Where have I seen that logic before. Oh yes Keynesianism in the west and communism in the rest. I really hope Obama takes his new slogan and marches “forward” off a cliff in november.

I must be out of date but I hear them use the term ‘global change’ rather than ‘global warming or climate change’. The term ‘global change’ is a much broader term, it can include change of anykind, like social, economic, political, not merely environmental change. Organizations which broaden their mission statement or broaden their business definition, usually do so because they are unable to reach their earlier targets or see a larger market for their business, and must innovate to reach them. But this change in terminology has a hint of policing or surveillance, as well as implied intervention built into it. I’ve never noticed this before.

I have to say, this is honestly terrifying to me and will provide the pretext for even more draconian energy regulation by the Federal Govenment in the future unless a new administration and Congress get elected, and return to science and reject the religious dogma of the climate change establishment. The threat to our American way of life, which has made the United States the greatest country in the world, is real and imminent.

“The threat to our American way of life, which has made the United States the greatest country in the world, is real and imminent.”

Chuck L
Yes but to those who follow that religious dogma, the American way of life is bad. They believe that other ways of life are much much better, particularly the European way, so unless you make a good living be prepared to watch soccer and drive an electric car. The way of life of Americans is just soooo bad.

Curiousgeorge says:
May 1, 2012 at 6:43 pm
152 pages, 32 MB of BS. Lot’s of pretty pictures. Lot’s of “Goals and Objectives”. One pie chart about how they are going to divvy up $2.18billion. Nothing that anyone with a clue about Strategic Planning would recognize. Note even a lousy Milestone chart. Basically a wish list and job security. Improve this, assess that, communicate the other thing. This will sit on a shelf and collect $2.18 billion dollars of dust. Paid for by US Taxpayers. Gee, thanks y’all.
——————————-
No problem, George…………We just borrow the money from China. They’ve got lots of money.

Given this, Figure 1, also based on WHO (2009), not surprisingly
shows that global warming ranks second-last based on global mortality
(panel on page 28) or last based on the global burden of disease, i.e., lost
DALYs (panel on page 29).

This is nothing but a massive self interested money grab.
The entire four point plan, a remedy pretending to have a problem, is essentially a call for funding with a ginned up sense of need, urgency and priority.
All of it is the same bureaucrat speak commonly used in funding decisions to justify every department and program and policy.

$. Advance Science: Who would be against that? Who’s science? Any science? Illegitimate science? Of course. More money to our into every manufactured need to monitor and report on all things.

$. Conduct Sustained Assessments: Oh yeah that’s vital. Who will do that? The same people advancing the science will also be in charge of helping the “Nation’s ability to understand” it.
Wow, that’s like a quasi-peer review/sharing and guidance system that can’t go wrong.

$. Communicate and Educate: Perfect. This way the same people will handle any challenges, shape the public view and decide who will be among the tax funded scientific workforce.

Sometimes the only adequate response to something like this is a two word expression that would get snipped. Hint: A single finger. And not thumbs up.

What US policies have done is to send manufacturing from the US to China, where costs are lower and pollution is higher. The US now sends a large amounts of cola to China to provide energy for this manufacturing.

Along with this manufacturing has gone the jobs. However, the pollution has returned from China to the US, via the wind. US CO2 levels are at record highs – but now they are being created in China using US coal, providing employment for Chinese and unemployment for Americans.

As the EPA shuts down coal plants in the US, US coal demand drops and the coal is shipped to China where it produces CO2 which the wind carries back to the US. How many US jobs does that coal represent? How much has the EPA policy reduced global CO2 production?

Combining climate science modelling which fails to track the past or accurately forecast the future with models from sciences and liberal arts (including the “dismal science” of economics) can only result in models of such overreaching complexity that falsification is impossible.

If you have enough stopped clocks one is accurate every minute of the day.

I write to thank everyone who has replied to the question in my post (at May 2, 2012 at 2:14 am).

My post explained that I failed to see any change in US policies and expenditure(s) in the “Strategic Plan” except for altered wording and, therefore, the “Plan” seems to be a presentation of existing policy with an adjustment of wording for use prior to the coming election.

Hence, my question was;
“So, can anybody tell me what is being altered by this “Plan”, please?”

Understandably, several people seem to have thought my question was rhetorical because they gave a reply which was most clearly expressed by Bill Tuttle (at May 2, 2012 at 3:13 am): his reply said to me;
“You missed the point. The plan doesn’t alter anything — the plan needs to *be* altered.
Altered all the way down to nothing…”

Of course, I agree with that poiint which I did not miss. Indeed, I have been fighting the AGW-scare since the early 1980s (i.e. before many readers of WUWT were born). And I am sure that e.g. Bill Tuttle knows I agree with it, so his answer (and similar answers from others) must have been posed as a rhetorical response to what was thought to be a rhetorical question.

But my question was genuine and not rhetorical.

At May 2, 2012 at 5:28 am ‘klem’ posted the only comment which addresses the issues I explained and summated with my question. He writes;

“I must be out of date but I hear them use the term ‘global change’ rather than ‘global warming or climate change’. The term ‘global change’ is a much broader term, it can include change of anykind, like social, economic, political, not merely environmental change. Organizations which broaden their mission statement or broaden their business definition, usually do so because they are unable to reach their earlier targets or see a larger market for their business, and must innovate to reach them. But this change in terminology has a hint of policing or surveillance, as well as implied intervention built into it. I’ve never noticed this before.”

Thankyou ‘klem’. That is how I interpret it, too. If we are right then publication of this “Strategic Plan” has importance.

That importance is expressed by ‘Chuck L’ whose post at May 2, 2012 at 5:58 am begins;
“I have to say, this is honestly terrifying to me …”

Simply, few are aware of the implications of this “Strategic Plan” and similar policies in other countries (notably EU countries). But the publication of this “Strategic Plan” provides an opportunity to raise the public’s awareness of the implications.

Therefore, publication of this “Plan” provides an opportunity for all who value freedom to unite in raising that awareness both in the US and elsewhere. I hope we will do that. And I hope we will avoid the attack-dogs of the American extreme-right preventing that unity as they often do on WUWT.

I did not want to go off-topic too much, so I wrote up a blog post on my blog on the Copper wars if anyone was interested in discussing the regulation/deregulation and what I meant by my post earlier. I did it rather quickly, so its slightly choppy, and I used the book I read awhile back for most of it. (source wise) I did get a couple details wrong since it was so long since I read it in my posts above, so please forgive me.. http://benfrommo.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/copper-wars-and-the-case-for-sensible-regulation/

In any case, I agree that anything we see nowadays is over-regulation and that is where the direction of the conversation should be going, namely as to the point of this 10 year plan seen here. Its nothing but a way for people to justify spending more taxpayer monies on a 10 year plan that will become yet another 10 year plan that fails miserably, costs money and will probably destory industry and agricultural if it acutally achieves anything.

But heck, this plan is nothing cost wise. We already give away over 100 hundred billion a year in subsidies for sunbeams and wind turbines (which fits into the pockets of the robber barons as me and Gail were mentioned earlier….) and the only thing to be concerned about with this plan is the actual objectives and whether its just another waste of money or whether its actually going to take away our freedom. That takes some reading in other words.

Here’s a theory to explain the tenacity of the CAGW narrative in spite of substantial contrarian evidence.
CAGW may not be a stratagem for leftist control and taxation as is often expressed here and elsewhere. Rather it may represent a symptom of a worldwide political and societal shift to the left. The reason for this shift to the left is probably a consequence of the comfortable lifestyles brought about by the economic affluence of the last century, especially of the 1990s and early 2000s.
Think about it. What preoccupies the individuals of an affluent society? There are no immediate concerns. Thought – and activism – can be devoted to long-term concerns and to our fellow man. The well-off can not only afford to, but must, appear altruistic and utopic. More so in the public sphere, such as in academia and in politics. Public figures need worthy causes to show off their sanctimonious greatness. After all, opportunity calls. The precautionary principle, saving the planet and generally caring for the less fortunate become imperious. As for the less well-off, they develop a sense of entitlement. They want a share of the wealth i.e. other people’s money. Therefore, affluence leads to socialism. Never mind that capitalism brought about the affluence in the first place.
So what will bring CAGW down? The downfall of socialism will kill CAGW. Socialism fails when money runs out, as it always does. Money is already rapidly running out in the social democracies. As socialism fails, over the next 5 to 10 years, concerns will shift to more immediate and basic needs (food, warm shelters, jobs, health and education). Proper climate science alone won’t kill CAGW because doubts, however small, on the human contribution will persist. The precautionary principle will apply until more basic and more immediate concerns take over.
Does this mean we’re wasting our time trying to set the record straight? Absolutely not. We have to denounce the very notion of using Science for ideological purposes. The credibility of Science depends on it.

There is absolutely no comparison between the “Five Year”, centralized control approaches implemented by the failed Soviet system in the past. Every organization must develop plans for future efforts based on the simple premise that organizational survival requires effective management, reasonable predicability, and appropriate utilization of energy systems. To survive organizations have to understand vital life-enhancing ecological systems and especially the cumulative impacts of their relationships with all other organizations, communities and individuals. This is obviously a massive undertaking, but we have the capacity now to achieve this result and hence, to make decisions which optimize our chance for survival.

There is a quote from a Norwegian VP of Exxon which I will roughly paraphrase: Communism failed because they failed to take into account the importance of alternative economic systems; capitalism is in danger because we are failing to acknowledge the importance of ecological systems.

It would indeed be a LOL except for the economic and human suffering these idiots will inflict upon everyone as a result of their stupidity. But, I guess it goes back to what the man said about people, in the end, getting the government they deserve.

Reminds me of the old quote about needing to grow the beauracracy in order to support the growing beauracracy.

This agency sounds an aweful lot like Homeland Security. Just another redundant redundant layer of red tape and spending which performs exactly the same functions already performed by the agencies it coordinates, and those agencies already have overlapping and duplication of functions.

I really like how they just decided to expand thier mandate beyond the original Congressional license, so that they now have an arm to expedite the disemination of thier agenda through “education”. I guess the word “education” in this context translates into advertising money and grants for special interst groups. The original Congressional charter wouldn’t have really justified an advertising budget or donations to groups like WWF, but now they can!!

If I remember correctly, part of Stalin’s 5 year plan involved building tracked farm vehicles. They ended up having a huge number of tracks but no vehicles. Then Germany invaded and they used them as wheels on some of their artillery pieces.
Maybe we’ll be able to use the vanes from all the wind farms to build the Marines really big Ospreys. (Assuming we still have any gas left to fly them.)

umm, wrong Hugh – communism failed for not taking human corruption into account (not to mention it also fosters laziness) and capitalism is failing from over regulation and a lack of teaching ethics to people when they are young and holding ethical behaviour in high esteem. Truely, without ethics all human endeavors collapse.

This is not exactly the group think you think it is. It is actually a game very common in DC and the states called “Ive got a pot of money and you can have some if you play the game right, look busy, and continue doing my side agenda as we discussed in the back room meetings”. Don’t be fooled–these are money games with no real agenda in mind for real outcomes like high speed rail to nowhere and funding renewable energy projects with only tongue and cheek due diligence.